21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Potential Mechanisms Involved in Palmitoylethanolamide-Induced Vasodepressor Effects in Rats

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Palmitoylethanolamide is an endogenous lipid that exerts complex vascular effects, enhances the effects of endocannabinoids and induces a direct hypotension, but the mechanisms involved have been poorly explored. Hence, this study investigated in Wistar pithed rats the role of CB<sub>1</sub>, CB<sub>2</sub>, TRPV1 and GPR55 receptors in the inhibition by palmitoylethanolamide of the vasopressor responses produced by sympathetic stimulation or exogenous noradrenaline. Frequency- and dose-dependent vasopressor responses were analysed before and during intravenous (i.v.) continuous infusions of palmitoylethanolamide in animals receiving i.v. bolus of the antagonists NIDA41020 (CB<sub>1</sub>), AM630 (CB<sub>2</sub>), capsazepine (TRPV1), and/or cannabidiol (GPR55). Palmitoyletha­nolamide (0.1–3.1 μg/kg/min) dose-dependently inhibited the sympathetically induced and noradrenaline-induced vasopressor responses. Both inhibitions were: (i) partially blocked by 100 μg/kg NIDA41020, 100 μg/kg capsazepine, or 31 μg/kg cannabidiol; (ii) unaffected by 310 μg/kg AM630; and (iii) abolished by the combination NIDA41020 + capsazepine + cannabidiol (100, 100, and 31 μg/kg, respectively). The resting blood pressure was decreased by palmitoylethanolamide (effect prevented by NIDA41020, capsazepine or cannabidiol, but not by AM630). These results suggest that: (i) palmitoylethanolamide inhibits the vasopressor responses to sympathetic stimulation and exogenous noradrenaline and that it induces hypotension; and (ii) all these effects are mediated by prejunctional and vascular CB<sub>1</sub>, TRPV1 and probably GPR55, but not by CB<sub>2</sub>, receptors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The orphan receptor GPR55 is a novel cannabinoid receptor.

          The endocannabinoid system functions through two well characterized receptor systems, the CB1 and CB2 receptors. Work by a number of groups in recent years has provided evidence that the system is more complicated and additional receptor types should exist to explain ligand activity in a number of physiological processes. Cells transfected with the human cDNA for GPR55 were tested for their ability to bind and to mediate GTPgammaS binding by cannabinoid ligands. Using an antibody and peptide blocking approach, the nature of the G-protein coupling was determined and further demonstrated by measuring activity of downstream signalling pathways. We demonstrate that GPR55 binds to and is activated by the cannabinoid ligand CP55940. In addition endocannabinoids including anandamide and virodhamine activate GTPgammaS binding via GPR55 with nM potencies. Ligands such as cannabidiol and abnormal cannabidiol which exhibit no CB1 or CB2 activity and are believed to function at a novel cannabinoid receptor, also showed activity at GPR55. GPR55 couples to Galpha13 and can mediate activation of rhoA, cdc42 and rac1. These data suggest that GPR55 is a novel cannabinoid receptor, and its ligand profile with respect to CB1 and CB2 described here will permit delineation of its physiological function(s).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            'Entourage' effects of N-palmitoylethanolamide and N-oleoylethanolamide on vasorelaxation to anandamide occur through TRPV1 receptors.

            The endocannabinoid N-arachidonoylethanolamide (anandamide) is co-synthesized with other N-acylethanolamides, namely N-palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) and N-oleoylethanolamide (OEA), which have been shown to potentiate anandamide responses (so-called 'entourage effects') in non-vascular tissues. It remains unclear whether such interactions occur in the circulation. In rat isolated small mesenteric arteries, the effects of PEA and OEA on relaxation to anandamide and tissue contents of the N-acylethanolamides were examined under myographic conditions. Anandamide-induced relaxation was potentiated by pretreatment with PEA (10 microM) or OEA (1 microM), or in combination. The potentiation by PEA and OEA was endothelium-independent and abolished by treatment with capsaicin (10 microM), which desensitizes the transient receptor potential vanilloid type 1 (TRPV1) receptor system, or by the TRPV1 receptor antagonist, N-(3-methoxyphenyl)-4-chlorocinnamide (SB366791) (2 microM). It was also observed at molar ratios of anandamide and PEA (or OEA) similar to those found in mesenteric arteries. PEA and inhibition of anandamide hydrolysis by 3'-carbamoyl-biphenyl-3-yl-cyclohexylcarbamate (URB597) (1 microM) additively potentiated anandamide responses. On the other hand, PEA and OEA also induced vasorelaxation per se (rank order of potency: anandamide>OEA>PEA), but relaxation to the three N-acylethanolamides displayed different sensitivity to treatment with capsaicin, SB366791 and URB597. For example, relaxations to anandamide and OEA, but not PEA, were attenuated by both capsaicin and SB366791. This study shows that PEA and OEA potentiate relaxant responses to anandamide through TRPV1 receptors in rat small mesenteric arteries. The congeners also induce vasorelaxation per se, suggesting a function for the N-acylethanolamides in vascular control.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Therapeutic effects of cannabinoids in animal models of seizures, epilepsy, epileptogenesis, and epilepsy-related neuroprotection.

              The isolation and identification of the discrete plant cannabinoids in marijuana revived interest in analyzing historical therapeutic claims made for cannabis in clinical case studies and anecdotes. In particular, sources as old as the 11th and 15th centuries claimed efficacy for crude marijuana extracts in the treatment of convulsive disorders, prompting a particularly active area of preclinical research into the therapeutic potential of plant cannabinoids in epilepsy. Since that time, a large body of literature has accumulated describing the effects of several of the >100 individual plant cannabinoids in preclinical models of seizures, epilepsy, epileptogenesis, and epilepsy-related neuroprotection. We surveyed the literature for relevant reports of such plant cannabinoid effects and critically reviewed their findings. We found that acute CB1R agonism in simple models of acute seizures in rodents typically produces anti-convulsant effects whereas CB1R antagonists exert converse effects in the same models. However, when the effects of such ligands are examined in more complex models of epilepsy, epileptogenesis and neuroprotection, a less simplistic narrative emerges. Here, the complex interactions between (i) brain regions involved in a given model, (ii) relative contributions of endocannabinoid signaling to modulation of synaptic transmission in such areas, (iii) multi-target effects, (iv) cannabinoid type 1 and type 2 receptor signaling interactions and, (v) timing, (vi) duration and (vii) localization of ligand administration suggest that there is both anti-epileptic therapeutic potential and a pro-epileptic risk in up- and down-regulation of endocannabinoid signaling in the central nervous system. Factors such receptor desensitization and specific pharmacology of ligands used (e.g. full vs partial agonists and neutral antagonists vs inverse agonists) also appear to play an important role in the effects reported. Furthermore, the effects of several plant cannabinoids, most notably cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabidavarin (CBDV), in models of seizures, epilepsy, epileptogenesis, and neuroprotection are less ambiguous, and consistent with reports of therapeutically beneficial effects of these compounds in clinical studies. However, continued paucity of firm information regarding the therapeutic molecular mechanism of CBD/CBDV highlights the continued need for research in this area in order to identify as yet under-exploited targets for drug development and raise our understanding of treatment-resistant epilepsies. The recent reporting of positive results for cannabidiol treatment in two Phase III clinical trials in treatment-resistant epilepsies provides pivotal evidence of clinical efficacy for one plant cannabinoid in epilepsy. Moreover, risks and/or benefits associated with the use of unlicensed Δ(9)-THC containing marijuana extracts in pediatric epilepsies remain poorly understood. Therefore, in light of these paradigm-changing clinical events, the present review's findings aim to drive future drug development for newly-identified targets and indications, identify important limitations of animal models in the investigation of plant cannabinoid effects in the epilepsies, and focuses future research in this area on specific, unanswered questions regarding the complexities of endocannabinoid signaling in epilepsy. This article is part of a Special Issue titled Cannabinoids and Epilepsy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JVR
                J Vasc Res
                10.1159/issn.1018-1172
                Journal of Vascular Research
                S. Karger AG
                1018-1172
                1423-0135
                2020
                May 2020
                03 April 2020
                : 57
                : 3
                : 152-163
                Affiliations
                [_a] aDepartamento de Fisiología y Farmacología, Centro de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, Ciudad Universitaria, Aguascalientes, Mexico
                [_b] bInstituto de Neurobiología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus UNAM-Juriquilla, Querétaro, Mexico
                [_c] cDivision of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [_d] dDepartamento de Fisiología, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico
                [_e] eDepartamento de Farmacobiología, Cinvestav-Coapa, Mexico City, Mexico
                Author notes
                *Prof. Dr. Carlos M. Villalón, Departamento de Farmacobiología, Cinvestav-Coapa, Czda. Tenorios 235, Col. Granjas-Coapa, Deleg. Tlalpan, Mexico City 14330 (Mexico), cvillalon@cinvestav.mx
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0244-5209
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6472-1419
                Article
                506158 J Vasc Res 2020;57:152–163
                10.1159/000506158
                32248195
                14257c3a-e28d-4eb1-bd2f-7db91f4ae117
                © 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 31 October 2019
                : 26 January 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 3, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Methods in Vascular Biology

                General medicine,Neurology,Cardiovascular Medicine,Internal medicine,Nephrology
                GPR55 receptor,Cannabinoid CB1 receptor,Sympathetic vasopressor outflow

                Comments

                Comment on this article